AmericanPapist Comments
I'm a priest in Washington Archdiocese and we don't practice that in our parish. Maybe it is the pastor who want to do something different in his parish during Lent
The only thing I'd say is that the hymn of Thanksgiving after Communion is what the GIRM calls for. There is no "closing hymn" in the GIRM. It's...
1. Hymn of Thanksgiving, if desired
2. Final Blessing and Dismissal.
Open to correction, but I think that's right.
I can't be sure it's all correct since I don't have my copy of the GIRM handy but it certainly sounds like, at the very least, every intention is in the right place. Shoot, I'd like to have the full Confiteor more than once every couple of months, but that's just a pet peeve of mine.
May I ask what parish this is, and who is the pastor? I like the idea of kneeling for the penitential rite (very Anglican sounding), but the pastor should really be following the GIRM and having the congregation stand. Thank God that someone has recognized the value of silence both within and outside the liturgy, even in a parish!
I guess I'm just a stickler.
I always get a little uncomfortable at liturgical innovations, even when they appear like good ideas. This change even makes the Ordinary rite more like the Extraordinary, which is ok in my book. Still, it is not part of the Ordinary rite.
Sundays even during Lent are not supposed to be penitential days, so I am also a little concerned that Sunday Mass has been altered to be more penitential than normal. (In the Extraordinary rite, the penitential parts of the Mass are equally penitential across the seasons.) So if one must innovate thus, daily Mass during Lent and especially Fridays would be more appropriate than Sunday. But since so few people go to daily Mass, the pastor obviously wants to reach the most people--and losing the normal festal nature of Sundays in the process.
Pastorally well-intentioned, but liturgically questionable, and theologically in need of further thought.
I've been to parishes that have done similar things during Lent. I sort of like the notion of the ministers processing out in silence after the last blessing, to emphasize the sobriety of the season.
I do have an issue with the kneeling during the penitential rite - first of all, it's not called for in the GIRM, so once again we've got liturgical "tinkering" at the local level. Secondly, and more importantly, it drives home the notion that kneeling is primarily a penitential stature. I've been to parishes where we knelt during the penitential rite (because we were being penitential) and stood during the canon (because we are a resurrected people). The notion of kneeling as an act of adoration just isn't mentioned in places like that.
Frankly, I think that simply following the liturgical directions (i.e., reading the black and doing the red) puts the proper emphasis on the penitential nature of Lent - no Gloria, no instruments except as accompaniment, no flowers, purple vestments and paraments, silence and homily exhortations to prayer, fasting, almsgiving, confession and penance.
Tim, right.
At least I haven't seen any baptismal fonts drained and filled with sand. Ugggh.
The Cathedral of St. Thomas More in Arlington for Lent chants the Kyrie, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei in Latin, uses psalms for communion meditation, and has a silent recession at the end of Mass. Many parishioners comment every year that it is beautiful, and more penitential. Yes, it is beautiful and meditative--and closer to the full implementation of the GIRM! Why can't we do this year round?
Considering the state of liturgical music, a greater penance would be playing a song. /sarcasm off
Scott W. beat me to my real point. At least the baptismal font and (presumably) holy water fonts haven't been drained.
As for no music at the end; I would argue that such an approach should be used year round. From my perspective, it highlights the solemnity of the whole liturgy.
One of the most powerful masses I ever attended consisted of the Priest turning off his microphone and whispering almost the entire Eucharistic Liturgy, speaking aloud only the lines immediately preceeding a response from the faithful.
I have to slightly disagree with Doc Angelicus. Sundays in Lent do have somewhat of a penitential character to them. During Mass, the Gloria is not said. The Te Deum is not said during the Divine Office for the day, as it is on every Sunday of even Ordinary time.
Sundays in Lent are certainly not penitential in the same way that the other six days of the week are during Lent, but there is certainly a minor character of penitence about them.
Aside from the kneeling, ours was identical to yours -- in central TX
This is a liturgical innovation not called for in the rubrics. This is why I try to attend only the extraordinary Mass. No one has authority to change the rubrics or 'improve' them, not even a bishop! Disobedience is what this is!
The operative issue is not that kneeling is forbidden because it's not mentioned, but that kneeling is possible because it's not expressly forbidden.
Just for the record, at St. Matthew's Cathedral in downtown DC, we did not do any of the things you mentioned.
We don't do anything much different from what other parishes do, ie. not singing the "Gloria." Instead of an entrance hymn, the processional is a chanted Psalm with the refrain, "Lord, hear my voice."
We opened this way today, however there was no hymn of thanks after Communion and we did have an exiting hymn.
Tampa, Fl.
Todd, actually, the General Institution of the Roman Liturgy establishes in paragraph 43: "The faithful should stand from the beginning of the Entrance chant, or while the priest approaches the altar, until the end of the Collect..."
While it doesn't explicitly say "they may not kneel," it does say they "should stand" (the normative Latin uses the jussive subjunctive here - "Fideles stent"). For me, it's difficult to stand and kneel at the same time. Since the rubrics say I should stand, it seems pretty contradictory to say that kneeling is somehow permitted.
But even beyond that, the issue, for me, is making kneeling out to be a predominantly (or even exclusively) penitential action. If anything, our tradition would maintain prostration is the appropriate penitential posture, or at least the profound kneeling of a monastic performing the venia. Kneeling is certainly an act of humility and adoration, and can be AN act of penitence.
But wouldn't it be even more penitential to follow the rubrics mandated by Our Mother the Church, and leave our personal preferences and desire to "make an impact" in the vestibule?
This is a liturgical innovation not called for in the rubrics. This is why I try to attend only the extraordinary Mass. No one has authority to change the rubrics or 'improve' them, not even a bishop! Disobedience is what this is!
This is the sort of thing I hear people say about the extraordinary form of the Mass, and it really bugs me because it's not logically sensical.
It is true that in the extraordinary form, nobody has the authority to do something different from the rubrics. However, the same is true in the ordinary form. People that are neglecting the rubrics in the ordinary form are neglecting the rubrics. It's disobedience in either form.
For some reason many advocates of the extraordinary form seem to think that disobeying the rubrics is allowed in the ordinary form, which is not at all the case. Then, as in the complaint I quoted, it is said that the priests are being disobedient. Yet if the ordinary form really does permit neglecting the rubrics, then it would disobedience to neglect them, and so the entire objection becomes a mess of logical inconsistency.
The ordinary form does contain a few places where the celebrant may choose from amongst a few options of texts. It also specifies a few places where, for specific purposes, the celebrant may make a comment. That's really the extent of it. A priest who does one of these things isn't disobeyinf the rubrics - he's following them.
But it's not as though there is something in the ordinary form that says you can add stuff wherever you want or disregard the rubrics.
A celebrant can add to or change the extraordinary form just as licitlly as he can add to or change the ordinary form. It's illicit in both cases.
I guess I really don't understand the claim that the ordinary form of the Mass is able to be messed with, but the extraordinary form isn't, as if God protects extraodinary form celebrants with some charism of infallibility while celebrating Mass.
Shane,
When folks say that, they are often reacting to widespread abuses of the ordinary form.
You're delivering a thrashing where none is needed ;-) Those who prefer the extra-ordinary form will usually argue that the character of the ordinary form lends itself to abuses in a way the extra-ordinary form does not.
Of course, it all comes down to "Say the black/Do the red." As a regular lector, I certainly feel the pressure to 'perform.' I can only imagine the pressure a priest may feel. Probably would help things out if they faced the same direction as the congregation, so all of them faced God together. That way, no pressure would be upon them to 'close the circle' and start thinking the mass is a human accomplishment.
I feel a you-tube video coming on, with the song "Turn around (Total eclipse of the heart)" while pictures of Ad Orientem masses play.
Yes, it is forbidden to change the rubrics in any Mass. Yet, it is de facto allowed with the ordinary rite because as the Secretary for the Congregation for Divine Worship recently said in an interview, so many bishops are in rebellion and thus many priests are in rebellion! The bishops refuse to discipline their priests because they themselves read the Mass in the same disobedient manner. The bishops teach their seminarians to read the Mass or to make things up as the inspiration comes to them. They follow the disobedience of the Bishop in matters liturgical, unless they have some gumption. Our own bishop uses illicit vessels in his own cathedral. So when I complain about the priest in our village using illicit vessels, it falls on deaf ears. Even socalled 'orthodox' priests fall for this innovation fever.
With the extraordinary Mass there are fewer options for personal interpretation. There also is a lot more detail. Also, priests who read the Old Mass are more likely to be obedient to the rubrics, than priests with the ordinary Mass are. To see disobedience institutionalized every Sunday and Holy Day is detrimental to the faith. So the only Mass around where that does not occur in our area is the Old Mass.
To all priests who read the New Mass: show your love for Jesus, Holy Mother Church, and the Holy Father by only doing or saying what is written in the Romane Missale and not one jot or tittle less or more! Also, all the pedagogical chatter is uncalled for. If you want to teach us, do that at the homily or in a talk outside Mass. Also, where there are options, choose the more restrictive ones and traditional ones.
Thank you and May God bless you all!
Commenting by HaloScan
